cc: Add command line for frame production throttle

content/renderer/gpu/render_widget_compositor.cc

Index: content/renderer/gpu/render_widget_compositor.cc
diff --git a/content/renderer/gpu/render_widget_compositor.cc b/content/renderer/gpu/render_widget_compositor.cc
index 0b50b6788fd0c7447299ebc92818e68cf7bb2edc..28c024128c5024088820eda2758fbe0895ed54e1 100644
--- a/content/renderer/gpu/render_widget_compositor.cc
+++ b/content/renderer/gpu/render_widget_compositor.cc
@@ -224,8 +224,13 @@ void RenderWidgetCompositor::Initialize() {
   // to keep content always crisp when possible.
   settings.layer_transforms_should_scale_layer_contents = true;
 
-  settings.renderer_settings.disable_gpu_vsync =
-      cmd->HasSwitch(switches::kDisableGpuVsync);
+  settings.renderer_settings.disable_display_vsync =

[danakj, 2015/07/01 19:47:23]

wow is this confusing.

we have 2 flags that you can set either one to do one thing.
we have 2 overlapping/different flags that must both be off to do another thing.

brian, is this really the best we can do?

[brianderson, 2015/07/01 20:51:57]

From a code readability perspective, I agree it's pretty bad. But from a user's
perspective I think it makes sense.

Most users just want to use --disable-gpu-vsync to disable both (like they can
at ToT today). Very few users will care about disabling one or the other
individually.

Would it help code readability if "throttle_frame_production" became
"disable_begin_frame_interval" so we don't have the double negation?

+      (cmd->HasSwitch(switches::kDisableGpuVsync) ||
+       cmd->HasSwitch(switches::kDisableDisplayVsync));
+  settings.throttle_frame_production =
+      !(cmd->HasSwitch(switches::kDisableGpuVsync) ||
+        cmd->HasSwitch(cc::switches::kDisableBeginFrameInterval));
+
   settings.main_frame_before_activation_enabled =
       cmd->HasSwitch(cc::switches::kEnableMainFrameBeforeActivation) &&
       !cmd->HasSwitch(cc::switches::kDisableMainFrameBeforeActivation);